AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff was a passenger on a motorcycle that collided with a van, resulting in the motorcycle driver's death and severe injuries to the Plaintiff. The van's driver had failed to observe a stop sign, leading to the collision. The Plaintiff sued Brinker Restaurant Corporation and an employee under the New Mexico Liquor Liability Act, alleging they served alcohol to the motorcycle driver to the point of intoxication before the accident (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, John F. Davis, District Judge: Granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The court later granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, set aside its order granting summary judgment, and allowed Defendants to file a supplemental brief. The court once again granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the motorcycle driver's intoxication, caused by Defendants serving him alcohol, contributed to the accident. Relied on an accident reconstruction expert's testimony and reports to support the argument that a sober driver could have taken evasive action to avoid the collision or mitigate injuries (paras 3, 4, 11).
• Defendants: Contended that the van driver's negligence was the sole cause of the accident and injuries. Argued that the Plaintiff's expert's testimony was speculative, lacked foundation, and did not raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (paras 4, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding a causative link between the motorcycle driver's intoxication and the collision between the motorcycle and the van (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants (para 34).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge M. Monica Zamora, concluded that the Plaintiff's expert's opinions were speculative, lacked foundation, and were not based on facts in the record. The expert's ultimate opinion on the causative link between the motorcycle driver's intoxication and the collision was deemed misleading rather than helpful to the fact-finder. The court found that the expert's opinions did not meet the standards set by Rule 11-702 NMRA, which requires expert testimony to assist the trier of fact. The court also noted that any contradictions between the expert's affidavit and deposition testimony should be resolved by the fact-finder, not at the summary judgment stage. The court's decision was based on the principle that summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (paras 5-33).